May 16, 2019

Supreme Court remarked after lawyer based his defence on a repealed law.

A lawyer fails in his duty if he acts merely as a “mouthpiece” of his client. A counsel who is lackadaisical in doing proper research in his case not only wastes precious judicial time, but also commits a wrong against judicial system, recent Supreme Court judgment stated.

The verdict came in an appeal filed by a lecturer who was wrongly dismissed by his college management. The court, in a 13-page order, described how it found, at last, that the lawyer for the college was betting his defence on a 1926 pre-colonial law which had been repealed a long back.

A Bench of Justice Arun Mishra & Justice Navin Sinha observed that the lawyer’s “negligence” would've cost the Supreme Court a “wrong judgment”. The top court said a lawyer’s failure in duty is a wrong against the justice delivery system in the country.

The lecturer, Lal Bahadur Gautam, was ordered to be reinstated. He had challenged his termination from a private unaided college affiliated to the Chaudhary Charan Singh University in Uttar Pradesh.

Midway through the case hearings, the court had found that the college’s counsel was banking on a repealed statute — the Agra Universities Act of 1926.

Remedial steps SC said that over the years, the responsibility & care shown in research by lawyers have been on the decline. Lawyers, now with the help of information technology, can't afford mistakes in court.

“It's time that we took note of the problem, and considered such steps to remedy the problem. We reiterate the duty of the parties & their counsel, at all levels, to double check and verify before making any presentation to the court. The message must be sent out that everyone has to be responsible & careful in what they present to the court,” the Bench observed.

The court said time had also come for the courts, at all levels, to take action against misleading submissions made by lawyers so that “the citizen’s faith in the justice system isn't lost”.

“After all, court time is to be utilised for justice delivery & is not a licence for waste,” Justice Sinha, who authored the judgment, observed.

The judgment further said the lawyer is an officer of the court & not a 'mouthpiece' of his client.

“The lawyer undoubtedly owes a duty to the Court as well as to the opposite side. He has to be fair to ensure that justice is done. He demeans himself if he acts merely as a mouthpiece of his client,” Justice Sinha wrote.

Source Link

Picture Source :